"Benefits" of being a volunteer

[JFLYNN 681]

Chief,

You took the time to respond in a thoughtful manner, so I'll do my best to return the favor.

OK, I'll elaborate a bit. First of all, perhaps we can agree that the yardstick for measuring the effectiveness of a Fire Department would be the average response time for an adequate number of fully trained, physically fit personell with proper equipment to arrive on the scene, and doing this all as cost effectively as possible. My feeling is that this all can be improved in any department (career or volunteer), but particularly with volunteer departments in Westchester County.

Agreed. Our standard is four fully qualified (NYS Standard) interior firefighters and a driver/apparatus operator. We don't require a CPAT, but we do require proficiency, tested annually, in both a live fire and non-live firetraining environment of skill sets requireing a modicum of physical fitness. We are a department which places a premium on realistic training. We drill for three hours three times a month, and for four hours one time a month. When the training tower is available, we prefer live-fire drills under realistic (at least as realistic as NFPA 1403 allows) conditions. We push formal training, including OFPC outreach classes. We also think 'out of the box', and have sent members to learn advanced suppression/flashover survival in Sweden and the United Kingdom, and in California and Oregon. We are currently looking into sending personnel to a Positive Pressure Attack Academy to evaluate that particular tactic for our use and inclusion into our training program. I would challenge most career department's to match us for our effort to make sure we are fighting today's fires with the best possible tools and tactics available. We also require a mandatory annual physical and fit test. Those who don't measure up don't get certified as interior firefighters. It is not a perfect system, and I for one won't vouch for the 'heart attack proofing' of this system, but it does work. I haven't had the pleasure of associating with the Yonkers Fire Department, but I can say that the career department's I have worked with (in New York and elsewhere), the level of physical fitness is not uniform, nor is it high. I sometimes wonder what the CPAT score would be for some of the 8-plus year career firefighters who ride out on a daily basis to calls. If career department's can guarantee a training/physical fitness standard which exceeds that of my department's average response, then I'll concede the point (but I don't think I'd have to -- we have four military veterans who are still in top shape, and four others who are good athletes who continue to work out regularly). My experience is that, with the exception of a few big city department's, this is not the case.

One big issue here is that we may be talking apples and oranges here. My fire department is in Albany County, not Westchester County. I am not equipped to fight Westchester's volunteer firefighter's battles, just defend my (limited) volunteer experience. In dealing with some career department's in Westchester, it seems that a major issue comes with the intermixing of volunteer and career departments in a very confined area. I can see how this could lead to tension, since the career and volunteer services are two different beasts from both an operational and managerial standpoint.

The changes I hope to see, and I believe I will see, will come a little bit at a time, over many years, in both career and volunteer departments. My voice is but one small piece in the puzzle in trying to accomplish this. I believe that ultimately regionalization and consolidation and the adddition of more career staff in many, not all, locations in Westchester County is the answer. However, to show conclusively that my theory is true, it must first be shown what the true cost of a volunteer department is, and also the true differences in response times, training levels, and services provided between career vs. volunteer departments.

Again, no debate. We all want to do the job as best we can. Might I point out that you would do well to recognize that there is a difference in how volunteer department's operate on a day-to-day basis than do career department's. I was a active duty Marine for 12 years, and know what it takes to prepare a unit to be combat ready. I also did an active duty tour managing Marine Reserve forces. I can tell you that there is a world of difference between the approach one takes to train active duty forces and reserve forces. Would I prefer to go to war with only the highly trained active duty component? Absolutely. Reservists scare the heck out of me. However, society and government have determined that we won't fund a fourth active duty Marine Division, or a fourth active duty Marine Air Wing. So we adjust. Would society like to have fully-staffed career fire department's available 24/7 to respond to every emergency? Absolutely. But the realities associated with the expense of such an effort dictate that not everyone can afford that coverage. As such, we have volunteer department's. We need to recognize right off the bat that volunteer department's, by their very nature, represent a different managerial and operational problem set. Just as I would have been wrong to try and run 4th Force Recon Company (Reserve) as if it were 1st Force Recon Company (Active) (I'm dating myself here), you would be wrong to apply your skill set as a Deputy Chief of Yonker's to the problem of running a Westchester volunteer department, and vice versa. So the concept of what constitutes "true" is relavent when it comes to comparing career with volunteer in terms of response times, training and services provided. There cannot be a single standard for all, no matter how hard some advocate in favor of such. As long as society mandates volunteer fire department's by failing to fund career department's, this will be the case. Does this mean we roll over and give up? Not at all. I think we can all agree we need to continuously seek to improve upon the current situation, some more than others. I'm a big fan of consolidation as a means of reducing costs and increasing efficiency, even though to utter such words often gets me treated as a heretic in certain circles.

You know nothing about my volunteer service, and you probably never will. I prefer to do my volunteer service without publicizing it nor asking for any accolades or credit. So, how can you say that it doesn't hold a light to the commitment required to field a viable volunteer fire service? BTW, I would question the word "viable" in many departments anyway. And remember, I question the whole notion of whether someone who receives substantial benefits for his or her service is morally (or legally in the case of taxes) justified in calling himself a "volunteer" I will tell you this, though...both my volunteer service and the service of most volunteer Firefighters pale in comparison to many, many humble, charitable selfless volunteers such as those who volunteer for Hospice, Red Cross, Salvation Army, Pediatric Cancer, Veterans services, etc., etc., and these people ask for nothing in return.

You are absolutely correct, and I apologize if it seemed I was attacking you or denigrating your volunteerism. I wasn't. The point I was trying to make is that I cannot think of many (any) volunteer activities which require the level of risk to life and health as firefighting. I've done more than my fair share of helping the elderly, sick and disadvantaged. It is time consuming. But I've never risked my life doing it, nor does that assistance require the amount of training and preparation that fire fighting demands. Likewise, I have a hard time believing that most benevolent volunteers (Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc) put in the time and effort of a professional volunteer fire fighter (by that I mean one who actually is prepared to do the job in a professional manner). We average over 150 hours of mandated training per active firefighter (many do more) per year. The career side requires 100 hours of in-service training per firefighter. We do at least four six-hour shifts a month (EMS coverage) for a 24-hour commitment, in addition to responding to fire calls (30-plus a month, averaging 1.5 hours each, for a total of nearly 70 hours of operational time per month). Then there is the time spent maintaining apparatus, cleaning equipment, and (for the officers) managing the department. We are not just available when it is conveniant for us to be available, but rather usually when it is most inconveniant. There is a difference between being a volunteer firefighter and other forms of volunteerism. This was my point, and was in no way meant to be an attack on you or the volunteer work you do.

As far as career departments opening their books, believe me, they are wide open, for you or anyone who wishes to take a look. This is a matter of law- we are subject to full public scrutiny, as opposed to the books of most volunteer departments.

Again, I can't speak for most volunteer department's, just mine. I know that four years ago we approached our community for funding for a new firehouse. We held public meetings, and our finances were examined thoroughly. The issue of fire tax allocations and non-tax donations were addressed thoroughly, and the numbers examined even more closely. Some members of the community tried to make a big deal out of the department (i.e., non-firematic) funds. While the community voted down the funding for the firehouse (while disappointed, I actually am sympathetic to their vote, since I don't believe we had our act together before we went forward requesting such a large chunk of public money, but that is another story), the community rallied around the firefighters and the service we provide. I can safely say the little old lady who gives us 10 dollars knows exactly what she is doing, and why she does it.

I would say that anecdotally, most volunteer Firefighters I have seen are in poor physical condition. However, the main point here is cost. Firefighters, career or volunteer, should have access to physical fitness facilities and insurance, however with consolidation and regionalization and the addition of career staff where appropriate, these expenses could be significantly reduced and measures could be put in place to hold all firefighters accountable for maintaining a certain minimum physical fitness level in return for these benefits.

While noting the emphasis placed on the word benefits as being representative of your strongly held position on the matter, and unable to vouch for the physical fitness of anyone but those I associate with (I've said it before, I'll take my top 8 responding interior firefighters to my engine, and proudly compare their physical fitness with that of the average career engine any day of the week. I'd also be very comfortable with a comparison of their respective training level, and operational performance. All we suffer from is the requirement to respond from home or work, thereby slowing down our overall response (arrival) time -- to about 6-7 minutes at night, and 10 minutes during the day), I agree that things can be done better, and I for one (despite my advanced years) would support any and all efforts to hold interior firefighters to a stringent physical fitness standard regardless of career or volunteer status (Reserve Marines run the same physical fitness test as did we active duty Marines).

Again, if we had regionalization / consolidation, there would be far less Chiefs and far fewer departments and more efficient training and these "training" expenses would be significantly reduced.

I cannot find where my discussion on training had anything to do with the number of Chief's existed in a given department. We send firefighter's/company officer's to train, not Chief's. Sometimes Chief's attend events to look at potential purchases. But our training budget focuses almost exclusively on the firefighter/company officer. Rather than reducing training expenditures, I am constantly pushing for even more money to be allocated to realistic and effective training, especially in this day and age of reduced fire. The less we practice the operational art in active firefighting, the greater the need to train. Again, I don't know the Westchester average, but my department has four Chief's -- Number One (overall management), number Two (Apparatus and Equipment), number three (Training), and number four (EMS). We also have a fire Captain and a Rescue Captain. In no way can I see how this number is excessive to the task, especially when you keep in mind that we are volunteers, and as such are managed differently.

This is exactly my point. First of all, do the people who donate to the volunteer department for non-firematic expenses know that their money does not pay for the fire truck but goes for "non-firematic" expenses (perks)? Do you clearly advertise this? Maybe 40 Grand isn't much to you, but the 10 bucks you just got from the little old lady is a lot to her, and I'm sure many people who donate to volunteer departments, if they knew where the money really goes, would choose to spend their charitable funds elsewhere.

I addressed this above. I am very comfortable with how open we have been with our public. People are free to disburse private income any way they see fit. We are proud of the fact that our community continues to support us with their contributions, even in these hard times. I can safely say that, following the 72-hours straight my department responded to help my community during the last severe weather incident (mainly hazerdous conditions), and based upon how grateful the public was to see us out there, responding at all hours of the day to any number of situations, we'll continue to be supported in a manner which meets or exceeds past levels.

Next, this whole argument is the fallacy that is constantly put forth by FASNY and which hurts career Firefighters severely. I don't believe your figures at all. These are scare tactics. A regionalized career or combo department, when you factor in all the direct and indirect costs of all the volunteer departments in that region, would very likely be less expensive (lower taxes, lower insurance premiums, no donations required) and provide a better service. This department could also provide critical first responder EMS services- which is sorely needed in most places in Westchester County.

My numbers are very clear. Maybe we could sit down over beers some time and crunch them. The tax dollars are a matter of public record. The number I quoted before was based on five years ago. The most current tax record (I just recieved it in the mail) shows a level of $826,790 for my fire district, and another $443,654 for our ambulance service (BLS and ALS, over 2,500 responses per year). Just as a matter of comparison, we also fund two full-time Paramedics 24/7, each with their own SUV. That expense costs the taxpayer $751,794 per year. Just to put it in perspective -- we volunteers staff three ambulances 24/7 for $443,654, while it costs $751,794 to man two ALS SUV's. So now let's talk about the costs for staffing and operating my fire district (about 5 square miles, 30,000 population). Right now we do it with two engines, one ladder and one Squad (main apparatus). We can safely rely on heavy rescue, HAZMAT and additional engines (four) and ladders (two) from our mutual aid departments. The 2009 budget for Poughkeepise (4.8 square miles, 30,000 people) is $6.1 million, down from $6.32 million last year. This funds 52 firefighters, 8 Lieutenants, 5 Captains, and 2 Chiefs, 3 engines and 2 ladders operating out of four stations. They also run 3 man engines and 2 man trucks. If they were fully manned, their costs would climb even higher. $6 million to cover my fire district with paid firefighters is not a 'scare tactic', but rather a very conservative estimate. If we applied Yonkers-level pay scales, the number would climb even higher. There are no hidden expenses in the money allocated for my department, with the exception of the so-called 'tax break'. I haven't applied for it, and neither have many of my peers. But even if we did, the $1,000 82 members cost ($82,000) would barely fund one Yonkers firefighter, the point is really useless. Volunteers cost far less than paid firefighters, end of discussion.

I responded to the open books comment above. So, if none of you do it for the "perks", why not just give them up? Maybe that 40 Grand you raised last year from donations could go towards building a nice playground, ot to a a Disabled Veteran's charity? Maybe the tax money from the NYS tax breaks you receive and are subsidized by all NYS taxpayers, including in my City, could be used to hire more career staff (or in our case, rehire some laid off Firefighters). Same with the LOSAP money.

See above. I'm fairly certain that my fire district fully funds the service awards program, and we do not make use of outside money. I know we fund our insurance. I can double check the details. Otherwise, I think I've covered the points raised.

I hope you feel that my comments have been constructive. I believe my friend Bnechis would be able to provide more specific info to further elucidate my points above, such as how many total apparatus, vehicles and fire department facilities we have in Westchester County, both career and volunteer, and how many we would need with a regionalized ddepartment and the resultant savings. Maybe he also has info. and numbers regarding the total cost to the State of the various tax breaks received by volunteer departments and the LOSAP program, etc., etc. He is much smarter than I am.

I do. Like I said, I'm open to continuing this discussion anytime, since I find it is an important and relevant one.

Of course, I am not naive. These changes will happen slowly, if at all, but as a previous poster mentioned, progressive minds dream.

I would never charge a Yonkers Deputy Chief with being naive. I'm as progressive as they come.

You are incorrect in stating that I am trying to achieve resentment and animosity. That is not the case at all. However, I have certainly felt those emotions directed at me on this forum, and it doesn't feel very good, so I'm truly sorry that you and others feel this way. I try my best to treat people respectfully, and make a positive difference in the world. I will plead guilty to being an intense, strong willed person who loves the fire service in general and my own department in particular. I like to debate issues, and try to get others (and myself) to think "out of the box" and maybe look at things differently than they have been. I am fully aware that this can make people uncomfortable and defensive, which is why I always end my posts, with, you guessed it, qtip...

I stand corrected, as it would be inappropriate of me to allege intent. I would say that it does seem that this discussion topic engenders resentment and animosity from both sides (paid and volunteer). This is no reason not to have the discussion. I'm all about thinking out of 'the box'. I, too, am an intense, strong willed person who loves the fire service and my own department in particular. I spent too many years playing Marine to ever have the opportunity to become a career firefighter. That being said, volunteering for my community as a firefighter has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life, exceeding even that of my 2-war experience with the Marines. I bring the same intensity and focus to firefighting as I did when serving my country as a Marine. I can say that most (not all) of my fellow members bring the same level of intensity. The level of extracuricular professional reading that goes on in my department matches or exceeds that which the Commandant of the Marines required when he published his various professional reading lists. We discuss fire behavior, building construction and ventilation with the same professional eye as when I discussed plunging fire, close air support, and the merits of the 5.56mm SS-109 round over the 5.45mm short. We don't claim to be able to provide the same level of service as would a fully-paid department. But we do assert that we provide the highest possible level of professional volunteer firefighting we are capable of. It is up to the community to determine if this is good enough. So far, they are pleased with their return on the dollar.

As I said before, Chief, I respect your service and your positions. I do think you might do well by walking a mile in the other person's shoes -- take the time to visit a local volunteer department (I used to live in Hastings on Hudson, right next door to you, and while I didn't volunteer there, I know they have at least two firehouses). Talk to their Chiefs and officers, and see what challenges they face when doing the job. That might help you at least understand better the volunteer perspective. I have done my best to get the perspective of the paid service by participating in numerous hours of operational 'ride alongs', both here in New York, Houston Texas, Los Angeles California, and overseas in Sweden and the United Kingdom. I don't claim to know everything there is to know about the career side of the house, but I have taken the time to try to better understand their perspective. In any event, thanks for the time you've taken to participate in this little exchange of ideas.

Semper Fi.

First of all, Semper Fi, and a big hoorah to you...I am honored to discuss this with a former United States Marine. I hold the Marines in the highest regard. Thank you for your service.

Your post is one of the best I have ever had the pleasure of reading on this site, although I disagree with some of it. Bnechis beat me to it in his response regarding some of your points. I won't quibble on here about some other minor issues which I would disagree with...maybe one day over a beer though.

I am quite familiar with volunteer departments in this area, having lived in areas served by volunteers, including Hastings for many years, and currently now in Ossining. I also taught many volunteers as an adjunct NYS Fire Instructor, although I stopped doing that a number of years ago, primarily out of frustration with many (not all) of the volunteers and the system which generally just passes people who show up right through, regardless of whether they have mastered the particular skill being taught.

As I have mentioned many times before though, this is not personal, it's business. I know many volunteer firefighters and the large majority of them in my opinion are good, hardworking, family people with good intentions.

Your department seems to me to be completely out of the norm for volunteer departments, probably in large measure to yourself. So, good for you and another hoorah.

As Bnechis mentioned, and I could go on and on, there are many hidden costs of a volunteer department...your Poughkeepsie example is flawed...you only compare your own department (seemingly an excellent, cost efficient volunteer department) to one specific career department (of which I know little) and you don't factor in consolidation or regionalization of a larger area and numerous departments. You also leave out many hidden costs of a volunteer department such as higher insurance premiums, other tax breaks you haven't mentioned, duplication of apparatus, buildings and equipment, etc. I'm doing this quickly and a little sloppily just to try to make the point...with time I'm certain these numbers could all be laid out and you would be astonished, particularly at the numbers here in Westchester. I'll leave that to Bnechis though, that seems to be his specialty.

The above doesn't even take into consideration operational issues, such as poor response times, particularly with EMS, and poorly trained people operating at fires and emergencies.

It has been a breath of fresh air discussing this with you. It's a darn shame that more people on this site are not able to discuss and debate ideas and issues without becoming personally offended and then, rather than present a valid argument, going on the attack in a personal way.

It is obvious that you will not need this advice, but to many of the rest of you out there....qtip...

[helicopper 1,050]

Kudos to all who are discussing this issue and not simply trying to defend positions based on emotion and tradition. Semper fi!

A couple of questions though...

DFD, you use for your example eight (8) individuals who exceed training and fitness standards and are the eight most active members of your department. What about everyone else? How true are your statements when those eight at are their regular jobs? There must be a degradation in response time and level of service when those eight are unable to respond. If memory serves, 36 FF plus an IC are required for the response in non-staffed departments for ISO ratings - your example only addresses 25% of that required response. What about the rest?

I just finished watching a fasinating cable broadcast on this thread. It was a rerun of the Westchester County Board of Legilature's budget hearings from last month. And the topic was county tax exemption for volunteer FF's and EMS. The legislation which passed 9 to 7 allows a discount (I believe 10%) to all volunteers whose depts. have 5 or fewer career personnel. And a lifetime exemption for members with more than 20 years service (they did not clarify the amount, but stated the time could be retroactive).

It is unclear which of the VAC's or VFDAC's will be affected, since many have some hired personnel.

If the volunteer agency contracts with a commercial service for coverage but employs none of its own "career personnel" will it be eligible? If there are no timelines does that mean the retired member who volunteered for 20 years in the 60's and 70's can realize this benefit today? And with all due respect Barry, if you call a rerun of a Board of Legislators meeting fascinating, you really need to get out more!!!

Volunteers cost far less than paid firefighters, end of discussion.

This has been a point of contention on this site for some time. It is very difficult to compare apples with apples when these examples are like apples and oranges but, putting some of the info on this site to the question...

If a volunteer department costs $ 800,000 to operate but the insurance costs to the community are $ 12 million and the career department costs $ 6 million but the insurance costs in their community are only $ 7 million, the difference is only a $200,000 per year. Now factor in the certainty of knowing that when you call a response will occur within a prescribed amount of time and the responders will all have a standard minimum of training and be supervised by a trained and experienced supervisor and the costs aren't so dramatic are they?

Mind you I'm not advocating a change to career departments or the elimination of them. I'm just looking at the fiscal impact on a community as a whole not just a single budget line.

Now it may be possible to reduce the insurance costs in an all volunteer community by requiring mandatory minimum training, complying with ISO and NFPA standards, and other measures to improve the fire protection in that district but when these subjects are brought up the response is often (not always but often, not everywhere but we've heard it) we can't do that because we're volunteers.

As for the 'vacation' comment, I believe that referenced the media reports of some fire departments sending members and their spouses on "training" trips to the Bahamas and Mexico and the like. If I remember correctly, the Attorney General's office found fault with that practice.

Finally, the LOSAP funding report that was referenced can be found at http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/fdreform/index.htm.

It's great to have reasonable discussions about an issue without grenades being lobbed at each other!

[helicopper 1,050]

Do any of the departments that have LOSAP have any data on whether or not it has actually helped their recruitment and retention?

Is it working as intended?

[Bnechis 3,961]

A couple of questions though...If the volunteer agency contracts with a commercial service for coverage but employs none of its own "career personnel" will it be eligible?

Unclear

If there are no timelines does that mean the retired member who volunteered for 20 years in the 60's and 70's can realize this benefit today?

Sounded like you have to still be with them, but past time counts

And with all due respect Barry, if you call a rerun of a Board of Legislators meeting fascinating, you really need to get out more!!!

I ment that sarcastically (which I know you know nothing about). But it was interesting to listen to what the politicians were saying and were not saying. 1 legislator that spoke about how it would help 1 dept in that legislators district, failed to mention that the 3 or 4 comb depts. volunteers would be paying for it.

Finally, the LOSAP funding report that was referenced can be found at http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/fdreform/index.htm

That sight gives great info, but I could not find the reference to the report on underfunding LOSAP. But I suspect thats the reason for all of the auditing requirements now.

[xchief2x 79]

Chris in answer to your question I don't see a change in our department except for people that we never used to see (except when free food was involved) coming out now for their points. As a member and a taxpayer I voted against it twice, once on the department level and then at the village elections. I wasn't promised anything when I joined and I don't expect anything when I leave. What I have gotten thus far is alot of new friends in other departments and a warm fuzzy feeling inside when we do a good job on a call.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Chris in answer to your question I don't see a change in our department except for people that we never used to see (except when free food was involved) coming out now for their points.

If those member are showing up for points, but not actually improving your response, it did exactly what it was designed to do. It cost the taxpayers $$$ and raised the dept numbers so it looks like you are in better shape.

I have spoken with a number of consultants who run LOSAP and not one can show a single study that proves it works to recruit or retain members. If anyone can provide such data, please advise.

If it had been sold as a way to reward members, I would not be so negative (If a community wants to provide it, thats up to them) but in most communities it was sold as a way to save money by maintaining the volunteers. If it is not providing you members who actually provide the service, is it not possible that some day some of these depts will have career personnel and still have to payout the LOSAP?

[helicopper 1,050]

If those member are showing up for points, but not actually improving your response, it did exactly what it was designed to do. It cost the taxpayers $$$ and raised the dept numbers so it looks like you are in better shape.

I have spoken with a number of consultants who run LOSAP and not one can show a single study that proves it works to recruit or retain members. If anyone can provide such data, please advise.

If it had been sold as a way to reward members, I would not be so negative (If a community wants to provide it, thats up to them) but in most communities it was sold as a way to save money by maintaining the volunteers. If it is not providing you members who actually provide the service, is it not possible that some day some of these depts will have career personnel and still have to payout the LOSAP?

Are there any studies identifying the actual cost of the LOSAP programs to Fire and EMS?

[Guest DFD189]

DFD, you use for your example eight (8) individuals who exceed training and fitness standards and are the eight most active members of your department. What about everyone else? How true are your statements when those eight at are their regular jobs? There must be a degradation in response time and level of service when those eight are unable to respond. If memory serves, 36 FF plus an IC are required for the response in non-staffed departments for ISO ratings - your example only addresses 25% of that required response. What about the rest?

I was citing the response from the sub-station which houses my engine company. We have two Lieutenants assigned (I'm one of them), and eight interior firefighters and one safety officer/apparatus operator. The Lieutenants and six of the interior firefighters are qualified as apparatus operators/drivers as well. From this crew we seek to get one officer and four firefighters (one of whom will drive). I'd be a liar to say we can do this 100% of the time during daytime response. Our main station (the other engine and truck) is home to the other 71 members, of whom approximately 35 are qualified as interior, and about a dozen meet the standards of the eight aforementioned firefighters from the sub-station. The remainder are either EMS-only, non-interior driver/apparatus operators, and a handful of "life members" who are no longer active members. In a worse-case scenario, we will roll two engines to a call and combine crews so as to meet the "two-in, two-out" rule, and rely on daytime mutual aid to fill out the response. In the nine years I've been a member, we've failed to get a full engine response during a daytime call only once, and while this is not a desireable situation, our daytime mutual aid resources provided a rapid response and contained the fire to the area of origin (attic). And I can say that we have provided a fully-manned engine/truck first-due for our mutual aid responsibilities as well. As a small department, the daytime officers know the response times of the firefighters available, so once it becomes clear that people aren't showing up, we fall back on our 'plan-B', which is consolidating crews at the scene. This is not ideal, but it is similar in nature to a paid department response when running under-staffed crews. For instance, Poughkeepsie runs three-man engines and two-man trucks. If they fill out a response, they get three engines and two trucks, for a total of 13 firefighters, some of whom have to operate the apparatus. We may not get the 36 firefighters you refer to, but we get enough to get the job done safely and efficiently. In terms of degradation of service, I've addressed this before...it's like rolling the dice, since you cannot gurantee a response. With my engine, I've got a good feel for everyone who responds, have trained them, and am comfortable with what I can ask of them. However, if I respond to the main station (for instance, to roll the truck), this guarantee goes out the window. This is the downside of the volunteer service, and i like many others keep scratching my head to see what can be done to attain a uniform standard of response.

[Remember585 815]

Chris in answer to your question I don't see a change in our department except for people that we never used to see (except when free food was involved) coming out now for their points. As a member and a taxpayer I voted against it twice, once on the department level and then at the village elections. I wasn't promised anything when I joined and I don't expect anything when I leave. What I have gotten thus far is alot of new friends in other departments and a warm fuzzy feeling inside when we do a good job on a call.

There's no real better way for me to put this - I hate the LOSAP system.

It has resulted in more headaches then anything else since we got it. People are almot to the point of putting a sign-in sheet on a casket at a funeral to get their damn point! The real members out there know who they are and the officers know who they are too, and that's all that matters when the pager goes off. All these low-lifes that are in it for the payback can quit and find something else to scam from as far as I am concerned!

[PVFD113 6]

There's no real better way for me to put this - I hate the LOSAP system.

It has resulted in more headaches then anything else since we got it. People are almost to the point of putting a sign-in sheet on a casket at a funeral to get their damn point! The real members out there know who they are and the officers know who they are too, and that's all that matters when the pager goes off. All these low-lives that are in it for the payback can quit and find something else to scam from as far as I am concerned!

I was hesitant to post here at all. My feelings were expressed in other's posts a lot of the time anyway. I definitely have to agree with John on the LOSAP issue. I understand why it is there. I know it was created with the right mindset but in a lot of ways--it is destroying us. I am sure we all have our "pointers". Get a good start from Jan. until March or so, disappear for a while--maybe pick up an easy point or so, then come back October/November to make up the balance of what they need for the year. Ughhh--it is so frustrating.

I believe the saying goes--"Pride is my paycheck"

[xchief2x 79]

well said John & Adam! When this issue came p we as a department decided that we needed some firehouse work and some new apparatus, so we put the LOSAP on th eback burner. After the construction of a new firehouse, the rehab and addition to another and the purchase of the 2 apparatus that needed replacement one of our 5 companies (whom I refer to as a social club) came to our council (governing body) and started their quest for the program. The wya it was sold to the village was the least expensive way, everyone started at year 1 regardless of how many years you had which ticked off alot of our senior people. We have tried several methods to recruit people and we got a couple some good some not. I firmly believe that if someone wants to get involved (if they have the time) they will come to us. Most of our best people came that way. So as far as I'm concerned if it came to a vote to drop it I would definetly vote YES! LIke my esteemd colleague from Putnam Valley said, Pride is my paycheck.

[Guest Local596Secretary]

I would challenge any paid department to willingly sit down and open up its books (all the books, including Union expenses) to the public in these times of budgetary sensitivity. I'm fairly certain that the tax payer would be able to find much to question. While no volunteer fire department is perfect, I am fairly certain that the board of commissioners of my fire district, and those we operate with, would have no problem explaining how we spend the tax payers money in providing the service we do. We are true volunteer's, in every sense of the word.

Bring it on. If you want to see the budget that we operate under, that is public knowledge. Go down to city hall and request a copy. You will be handed one immediately and at no cost to yourself. As far as union bookkeeping...anytime you wish. We do a job with far less resources and funding than any volunteer organization can possibly claim. "True Volunteers" is correct. No matter what perks you receive, you do a difficult job (to a lesser degree) just as a career firefighter does. There will always be some "taxpayer" that feels that 2 haligans is one to many, but please don't insult career firefighters by saying our budgets are bloated. The challenge should be to compare two departments in actual operational funding. Then youll see the real discrepancies.

[Guest Local596Secretary]

For instance, Poughkeepsie runs three-man engines and two-man trucks. If they fill out a response, they get three engines and two trucks, for a total of 13 firefighters, some of whom have to operate the apparatus.

As a clarification here, Poughkeepsie does not run three man engines. Engine 2 has two firefighters and an officer. Both engine 1 and Engine 3 run with two firefighters. As stated, the ladders run with two firefighters as well. The only additional individual is a shift commander who responds in car 10. Our six million dollar budget must be taken in context as well. The police department in the same city has a twelve million dollar budget. DPW operates with a 7.5 million dollar budget. Even the recreation department operates with a one million dollar budget. We do not operate up to NFPA standards for manpower and the union has spent considerable time trying to address this issue contrary to a response in this forum suggesting we are okay with that. Please do not use my department as an example of bloated expenses. It is of course my opinion, but if anything we should be viewed as a department operating under bare bones conditions while still responding to 5000 runs a year and average a fire a week. The simple point here is that volunteer fire departments while needed and respected are NOT FREE.

[NWFDMedic 58]

Chris in answer to your question I don't see a change in our department except for people that we never used to see (except when free food was involved) coming out now for their points.

This was one of my biggest beefs with the LOSAP program as well. However, out last chief made a concerted effort to make sure that those members responding to alarms to help their benefit program had something to do. There are always a couple of bad apples that will open their mouths before lifting a finger but we now have several guys that will help do what they can, whether it's manning the radio for alarms, helping to clean and maintain apparatus, etc., we have gotten a lot of guys back into the fold because we make sure they have something to do.

If you have guys who are just showing up to sign a sheet, you might want to be more proactive in getting them into roles that they can handle. As volunteer officers, we do that every day inside the truck, but sometimes we fall short outside of the truck.

[MJP399 4]

I have a question with the LOSAP debate, as I also feel that it is for the point getters as well, and not for the people that truly care.

When I joined the vol. fire service in my town, I joined because I had heard a lot about the actual firematic side of the department and it had intrigued me. It was nice that a friend or two was in the department, to help work me way in with the working crowd, however, I really wasn't in it for the social aspect. However, as cheif2x and 585 have mentioned, the friendships and bond that go allow with the department will last forever, and I think that this has been wielded with a solid showing at training, and carrying your own weight on the fire ground.

As chiefx2 had mentioned "one of our 5 companies (whom I refer to as a social club) came to our council (governing body) and started their quest for the program" I agree with you. It is a shame when myself and a certain other member come back with certificates of training, the question is not asked what did you learn, but "I think you met your Losap points in training for the year". That just upsets me, as well as others that try to work hard to better themselves as it does make that company or even the volunteer side of things sound like a social club.

As for 585 you are correct in saying that the point getters can go somewhere else or quit, they do nothing for department or company moral, and in my case as being a bigger guy in a smaller cab, hence the reason why I asked about the wellness program, just take up space in the rig.

So to ask a question. What is there that can be done, about this losap thing? I know I for one can care less if I get a few bucks in 20 years. I still cant figure it out after all. However, there are a few that can determine how to get the most points, with the least amount of effort.

Also as NWFDmedic had mentioned, how would being proactive work, it sounds great, however would it hurt those that are just on the edge?

I am just asking the questions for debate, as it seems that the topic in the thread is now LOSAP, and I am sure each department out there, whom uses LOSAP has there share of the point getters.

Thanks

Mike

Edited January 6, 2009 by MJP399

[Guest DFD189]

Bring it on. If you want to see the budget that we operate under, that is public knowledge. Go down to city hall and request a copy. You will be handed one immediately and at no cost to yourself. As far as union bookkeeping...anytime you wish. We do a job with far less resources and funding than any volunteer organization can possibly claim. "True Volunteers" is correct. No matter what perks you receive, you do a difficult job (to a lesser degree) just as a career firefighter does. There will always be some "taxpayer" that feels that 2 haligans is one to many, but please don't insult career firefighters by saying our budgets are bloated. The challenge should be to compare two departments in actual operational funding. Then youll see the real discrepancies.

The danger in writing responses off the cuff is that sometimes you write things in a manner which doesn't quite match what you meant to say. I'll start off with this: under no circumstances am I accusing any career department of fraud or waste. I know the media has documented several high-profile examples of fraud and waste in the volunteer system. This needs to be fixed. I have had the honor and pleasure of associating with the Poughkeepsie FD in times past, and while I often cite them as an example, it is never done to denigrate or demean. I try to keep the facts straight. If at any time my recollections and/or research has been faulty, I'll take the hit. My comments were directed more at remarks made concerning Departmental funds (non-firematic) versus District (firematic) funds. Our district budget, too, is a matter of public record, and is made available to any and all who want to see it. No budget is perfect, and people have different opinions as to where priorities should be weighted (new apparatus versus training and maintenance of existing equipment, for instance), and I'm sure a discerning eye would be able to find fault with how we allocate our dollars. But under no circumstance could anyone accuse us of fraud or deliberate waste. Question our judgement if you want, but never our integrity. Department budgets are likewise a matter of public record. A major issue is most taxpayers are not aware of the difference, and assume that there simply is one big budget. This is not the case, as you are well aware. We use our department funds to fund non-firematic events, including meals following training, social events (holiday gatherings), and other activities which are conducive to team building and developing a sense of unity (and building morale). While I cannot vouch for other department's, I can safely say that the last thing our members view the department as is a 'social club.' We are a fire department. If we choose to fund what I would term as 'team building' activities (this includes keeping the families of firefighters happy as well), so be it. My understanding is that Unions provide similar type funding support for the social side of their departments (I could be wrong). This is what I meant by my comments. I understand I am comparing apples to oranges, though. I reiterate, again, my highest regard for the Poughkeepsie Fire Department and the professionalism of its members. No insult was intended to any career department.

[Guest DFD189]

As a clarification here, Poughkeepsie does not run three man engines. Engine 2 has two firefighters and an officer. Both engine 1 and Engine 3 run with two firefighters. As stated, the ladders run with two firefighters as well. The only additional individual is a shift commander who responds in car 10. Our six million dollar budget must be taken in context as well. The police department in the same city has a twelve million dollar budget. DPW operates with a 7.5 million dollar budget. Even the recreation department operates with a one million dollar budget. We do not operate up to NFPA standards for manpower and the union has spent considerable time trying to address this issue contrary to a response in this forum suggesting we are okay with that. Please do not use my department as an example of bloated expenses. It is of course my opinion, but if anything we should be viewed as a department operating under bare bones conditions while still responding to 5000 runs a year and average a fire a week. The simple point here is that volunteer fire departments while needed and respected are NOT FREE.

In the future I'll do my best not to single out any departments (but then I'll be accused of pulling numbers out of thin air). I chose Poughkeepsie because it has a similar size (4.8 square miles) and population (30,000) as my department's response area. I was trying to add credence to the $6 million price tag I had previously quoted as a figure necessary to operate a paid department in my neck of the woods. My highlighting the manpower issue wasn't meant to be insulting to Poughkeepsie (who does more with less than almost any other department out there), and I am fully aware that the Poughkeepsie local has been fighting for more manpower (something the recent budget cuts have not helped). My point was that operating fully manned apparatus with paid firefighters comes with a price tag that is higher than some communities are able and/or willing to pay. Volunteer fire department's are not free by any means -- they cost a pretty penny. I'm not against trying to get as specific as possible with the 'true' costs of a volunteer department, either. I know that there are communities around us that could never consider paid firefighters (rural, etc) without considerable assistance from the county/state. There are other communities (like mine, for instance) which have the tax base to afford a paid department, but choose instead to continue to rely on volunteers. This may be because we don't have the call volume Poughkeepsie does (if we were running 5,000 calls, I think this would change). I've said it before, and I'll say it again: when my department cannot consistantly respond to an emergency scene in a professional manner (I forgive the one-of-a-kind events which happen), then its time to pack up the tent and leave and turn the district over to a paid department. And if that time comes, I hope the quality of firefighting that exists in Poughkeepsie can be replicated here. Until then, we'll keep trying to do the best we can.

[Guest DFD189]

If those member are showing up for points, but not actually improving your response, it did exactly what it was designed to do. It cost the taxpayers $$$ and raised the dept numbers so it looks like you are in better shape.

I have spoken with a number of consultants who run LOSAP and not one can show a single study that proves it works to recruit or retain members. If anyone can provide such data, please advise.

If it had been sold as a way to reward members, I would not be so negative (If a community wants to provide it, thats up to them) but in most communities it was sold as a way to save money by maintaining the volunteers. If it is not providing you members who actually provide the service, is it not possible that some day some of these depts will have career personnel and still have to payout the LOSAP?

I can safely say that in my department LOSAP is not used as a recruiting tool (we don't even mention it to prospective firefighters), nor does it factor into the day-to-day reasons our most productive members respond. Why we went down that path is opening a can of worms, and I'll not go further in a public forum. We do take attendance issues seriously, however, and have reminded members that because public monies are involved, fraud will not only not be tolerated, but can also be prosecuted. If you want credit, you need to be present for the entire drill, and the entire response (if an apparatus leaves without you, you must stay in quarters on standby status until the department has been cleared from the scene). Simply showing up, signing in, and leaving isn't an option. I know that when we responded to some gas leaks last summer, we were on scene for 2 plus hours. Several members who missed the apparatus signed in, but then left after about 10 minutes without taking their names off the list. Not only were their names subsequently removed, but they were read the riot act for submitting a false claim. I personally am not a fan of the system, and would prefer the money allocated for LOSAP to be used to fund more training opportunites.

[Guest Local596Secretary]

In the future I'll do my best not to single out any departments (but then I'll be accused of pulling numbers out of thin air). I chose Poughkeepsie because it has a similar size (4.8 square miles) and population (30,000) as my department's response area. I was trying to add credence to the $6 million price tag I had previously quoted as a figure necessary to operate a paid department in my neck of the woods. My highlighting the manpower issue wasn't meant to be insulting to Poughkeepsie (who does more with less than almost any other department out there), and I am fully aware that the Poughkeepsie local has been fighting for more manpower (something the recent budget cuts have not helped). My point was that operating fully manned apparatus with paid firefighters comes with a price tag that is higher than some communities are able and/or willing to pay. Volunteer fire department's are not free by any means -- they cost a pretty penny. I'm not against trying to get as specific as possible with the 'true' costs of a volunteer department, either. I know that there are communities around us that could never consider paid firefighters (rural, etc) without considerable assistance from the county/state. There are other communities (like mine, for instance) which have the tax base to afford a paid department, but choose instead to continue to rely on volunteers. This may be because we don't have the call volume Poughkeepsie does (if we were running 5,000 calls, I think this would change). I've said it before, and I'll say it again: when my department cannot consistantly respond to an emergency scene in a professional manner (I forgive the one-of-a-kind events which happen), then its time to pack up the tent and leave and turn the district over to a paid department. And if that time comes, I hope the quality of firefighting that exists in Poughkeepsie can be replicated here. Until then, we'll keep trying to do the best we can.

DFD189, I don't think this comment could have been more right on the point. I would like to believe that this topic was not meant to cause this type of rift, but it is hard to think otherwise. Personally, I have a grudge against a certain local individual who is using public media to spout of that volunteers in Poughkeepsie are the answer to all of our budgetary woes. Perhaps, due to that I was to quick to react to your comments on our budget. The quoted comment and the preceeding one both explain your stance quite well and you should (as I am sure you already are) be very proud of what your department has accomplished. Keep up the good work and be safe.

[JFLYNN 681]

If those member are showing up for points, but not actually improving your response, it did exactly what it was designed to do. It cost the taxpayers $$$ and raised the dept numbers so it looks like you are in better shape.

I have spoken with a number of consultants who run LOSAP and not one can show a single study that proves it works to recruit or retain members. If anyone can provide such data, please advise.

If it had been sold as a way to reward members, I would not be so negative (If a community wants to provide it, thats up to them) but in most communities it was sold as a way to save money by maintaining the volunteers. If it is not providing you members who actually provide the service, is it not possible that some day some of these depts will have career personnel and still have to payout the LOSAP?

I can safely say that in my department LOSAP is not used as a recruiting tool (we don't even mention it to prospective firefighters), nor does it factor into the day-to-day reasons our most productive members respond. Why we went down that path is opening a can of worms, and I'll not go further in a public forum. We do take attendance issues seriously, however, and have reminded members that because public monies are involved, fraud will not only not be tolerated, but can also be prosecuted. If you want credit, you need to be present for the entire drill, and the entire response (if an apparatus leaves without you, you must stay in quarters on standby status until the department has been cleared from the scene). Simply showing up, signing in, and leaving isn't an option. I know that when we responded to some gas leaks last summer, we were on scene for 2 plus hours. Several members who missed the apparatus signed in, but then left after about 10 minutes without taking their names off the list. Not only were their names subsequently removed, but they were read the riot act for submitting a false claim. I personally am not a fan of the system, and would prefer the money allocated for LOSAP to be used to fund more training opportunites.

Devil Dog,

I'm surprised at you...you "read them the riot act"...what does that mean?

You tell your members that "fraud" (your words) will not be tolerated, but then you tolerate it??

I actually think that this whole LOSAP thing in NYS will help to speed the day when we will see more career departments / personnel.

qtip

[Bnechis 3,961]

We use our department funds to fund non-firematic events, including meals following training, social events (holiday gatherings), and other activities which are conducive to team building and developing a sense of unity (and building morale). If we choose to fund what I would term as 'team building' activities (this includes keeping the families of firefighters happy as well), so be it. My understanding is that Unions provide similar type funding support for the social side of their departments (I could be wrong).

Most if not all career FD's do not fund social functions with municipal funds. And union funds for these activities are raised by the union thru dues and fund raisers. Unions do not recieve tax money for non-firematic events, unless the municipality and union thru collective barganing agree to it and I am unaware of any that do.

[Guest DFD189]

Devil Dog,

I'm surprised at you...you "read them the riot act"...what does that mean?

You tell your members that "fraud" (your words) will not be tolerated, but then you tolerate it??

I actually think that this whole LOSAP thing in NYS will help to speed the day when we will see more career departments / personnel.

qtip

The issue whether or not to bring formal charges in a Chief/Commissioner issue. At the Company Officer level, we are told to make sure the member in question is aware of the rules, and if the rules are violated, then to counsel them and document the counselling. If the rules are violated a second time, then its bumped to the Chief level, for more stringent disciplinary action (suspension, etc). If after that, the same rule continues to be violated, then the member in question would be expelled from the Department. If evidence of significant fraud (i.e., the member was actually collecting illegal benefits) were discovered, I would imagine the Commissioners would seek legal advise and pursue the matter in accordance with Counsel's judgement. I do not think any of this constitutes "toleration" of fraud. What I can say is that we do no tolerate members simply signing in to get credit...they actually have to perform to a given standard to get credit.

Perhaps you're correct...LOSAP and other initiatives which begin to take on the appearance of "benefits" might be the straw that breaks the Mule's back, so to speak, in communities where the cost differential between maintaining a paid vs career department is narrow.

[Guest DFD189]

Most if not all career FD's do not fund social functions with municipal funds. And union funds for these activities are raised by the union thru dues and fund raisers. Unions do not recieve tax money for non-firematic events, unless the municipality and union thru collective barganing agree to it and I am unaware of any that do.

I think we're making the same point. Our tax dollars (i.e., municipal funds) go to fund firematic matters through the fire district. Department funds (i.e., fundraiser money) covers the non-firematic events. This is what I meant by bringing up the Union as an example for non-firematic issues. The difference is that I do believe our department recieves some money from the district (how much I cannot say at this juncture; it is not a large percentage) for non-firematic activities. I know the district has help fund the department's "racing team" (ask someone from Long Island; they'll know what I'm talking about.) So we're not quite as pure in terms of a clean break as a paid department would be in terms of black and white firematic vs non-firematic funds.